Auditor
The Auditor finds the best source for one of the path question. It is up to the Auditors. They can help their Reporters or Presenters find site. But they need to evaluate the source, not give the answer in their report.
Again the focus for Auditors is to find the best source for an answer and then evaluate that source.
Weight of each factor
Weighting of auditor factors
Quality of site
Site is tertiary, having simple dictionary-style descriptions. The site has nothing whatsoever to do with computers. The site is a copy of the original with no attempt to give credit to the original.
Can have major flaws in any of the following: Highly biased, shows a strong commercial purpose that can influence the content, strong subjective opinion. No author or the author has no strong background, education in the technical area. Source is secondary and some random blog site.
Secondary source materials that provides solid information on the question being answered but not totally unquestionable. May have some opinion but based on technical evidence. Scope somewhere between 1,500 to 3,000 words. Currency of material is clear and is no more than 2 years old.
Similar to a 5 site, but there may be some flaws in one to two of the following: objectivity, currency of information, technical expertise of the site, expertise of the author. Is either primary information or secondary with some excellent technical detail.
Primary site that has an author with an excellent background and education in the area. Website should also specialize in that area of technology, be highly regarded by the industry. The amount of technical detail is extremely high, with comprehensive descriptions and diagrams. The material is highly objective and the purpose of the website is noncommercial. The currency if the information is within the last 6 months. Content equal to 10 pages or more.
Website authority
Site does not match topic being searched, user posted answers (Quora), copied content from original, tertiary source that provides simple definitions, explanation or condensed, simplified answers.
Blog or enthusiasts site, professional site but does not match the subject being searched.
Tech or computer journal.
A highly respected journal that writes for computer professionals, one that expertise is solely focused on this subject
Website recognized at the definitive authority for this topic, a primary or original source for the topic, journal article with peer review, book specifically focusing on this topic, university research on the topic.
Author's expertise
Unknown, can't tell who wrote this. Some user.
Journalist with 1 to 3 years writing tech articles, no background in computers.
Author with education in computers science or related field to the topic, several years experience. Unnamed technical writer for corporate site.
Author with higher degree in computer science or in relevant field, 5 to 20+ years of experience.
The person recognized by others in the computer industry as the ultimate authority (example, Berners-Lee & Web, Ritchie & C language.
Your scoring of the site
Scores are way off or missing.
You have the wrong date for the material or can't find a date. There are overly optimistic high scores for most factors.
Some major differences between one two of your scores and mine.
Some minor difference between your score and what I would give.
Your scores are the same I would give.
Your analysis*
Not much written, with no to no explanation or details.
No evidence to support opinion, just that it seems or looks like it credible or objective or current.
Good discussion of most of the major points and does provide some examples or evidence that supports opinion.
Similar to 5 but has one to two flaws in currency of materials, objectivity, technical detail, author's background, website purpose, or scope.
Excellent discussion of the purpose and history of the web, the complete educational and work background of the author and a connection made behind why this person should write this article. Evidence of massive amount of technical detail. For objectivity, a good discussion of the perceived or possible bias of the author or the website given the purpose and intention of them. Evidence of a massive amount of scope. Also good evidence that the original was pasted within last 6 month, not that it has been updated within the last 6 months.
Reflection on improving next time
Only a sentence or two.
A couple of sentences that show some thought put into this.
A good paragraph explaining what were the issues with search quality, and a discussion on how to improve next time.
Thoughtful amount going to explain several issues the person or the team had with evaluating quality, with a discussion that explain this in more detail, concluding with a plan on how to improve next time.
Similar to 4 but just more discussion that shows good thought and analysis.